Comments on: The biggest CSS annoyance http://www.nkuttler.de/2008/09/29/the-biggest-css-annoyance/ WordPress Services, IT Services Thu, 09 Sep 2010 20:54:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: nicolas http://www.nkuttler.de/2008/09/29/the-biggest-css-annoyance/#comment-1005 nicolas Mon, 03 Nov 2008 20:08:29 +0000 http://www.nkuttler.de//?p=20#comment-1005 Mike, I appreciate the work you put into your comment, but I think you totally miss my point. Feel free to do whatever you want on your sites. UX people who don't think about such issues clearly have the wrong job IMO. Whenever I hire peope, I expect them to be, as you put it, pedantic. Mike, I appreciate the work you put into your comment, but I think you totally miss my point. Feel free to do whatever you want on your sites. UX people who don’t think about such issues clearly have the wrong job IMO. Whenever I hire peope, I expect them to be, as you put it, pedantic.

]]> By: Mike Padgett http://www.nkuttler.de/2008/09/29/the-biggest-css-annoyance/#comment-1004 Mike Padgett Fri, 17 Oct 2008 14:12:03 +0000 http://www.nkuttler.de//?p=20#comment-1004 "Not using this is really hurting a website’s usability." Unless I've misunderstood you, I think UX people have bigger things to worry about during their busy days :-) The circumstances you describe are vendor-specific. When scrolling is not needed (i.e. because the page length is less than the viewport), Internet Explorer historically shows an inactive scrollbar while Firefox, Safari and others show nothing. Check Google in each and you can see the difference. Both approaches to this particular state are by design and there's nothing ostensibly wrong with either, so trying to code against them, in my opinion, seems rather pedantic. What I believe you're describing above isn't a design flaw, but rather a by-product of how your particular flavour of browser handles your pages. And that's not something anyone needs to be coding against - maybe that's the reason why you "see it all the time". Otherwise it's a bit like coming full circle from the days of Flash "letterbox" sites (or indeed the dreaded intro pages), when many webpros used to deliberately force the scrollbar to disappear, especially when the inactive colour "clashed" with their fancy backgrounds... Ah, those were the days when clients spent 75% of their web budget on a Flash intro. And what they got was thirty plus longlasting seconds of whizzing vector graphics. With no "Skip intro" link to foul up the feng shui! :-D “Not using this is really hurting a website’s usability.”

Unless I’ve misunderstood you, I think UX people have bigger things to worry about during their busy days :-)

The circumstances you describe are vendor-specific. When scrolling is not needed (i.e. because the page length is less than the viewport), Internet Explorer historically shows an inactive scrollbar while Firefox, Safari and others show nothing. Check Google in each and you can see the difference.

Both approaches to this particular state are by design and there’s nothing ostensibly wrong with either, so trying to code against them, in my opinion, seems rather pedantic.

What I believe you’re describing above isn’t a design flaw, but rather a by-product of how your particular flavour of browser handles your pages. And that’s not something anyone needs to be coding against – maybe that’s the reason why you “see it all the time”.

Otherwise it’s a bit like coming full circle from the days of Flash “letterbox” sites (or indeed the dreaded intro pages), when many webpros used to deliberately force the scrollbar to disappear, especially when the inactive colour “clashed” with their fancy backgrounds…

Ah, those were the days when clients spent 75% of their web budget on a Flash intro. And what they got was thirty plus longlasting seconds of whizzing vector graphics. With no “Skip intro” link to foul up the feng shui! :-D

]]>